Subject: Re: [sv-ec] fork..join_none/join_any and automatic variables
From: Randy Misustin (ram@Model.com)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 16:16:11 PDT
Hi Steve,
Thank you very much for the robust discussion and sorry if I lured you
into waters you weren't intending to tread. My fault.
-randy.
Steven Sharp wrote:
>Randy,
>
>The scope of my comments on this was intended to be limited. I really
>didn't want to get into a full design discussion about how this issue
>should be resolved in SV.
>
>Some suggestions had been made about the behavior of fork-join_none/join_any
>with automatic variables, extrapolating from an incorrect concept of the
>behavior of fork-join and automatic variables in IEEE 1364-2001. My main
>intent was to correct this misunderstanding of the IEEE standard. I wanted
>to prevent it from spreading, and to avoid an extrapolation of SV behavior
>that would be inconsistent with the 1364 standard.
>
>I also suggested some alternative extrapolations for SV from the correct
>1364 behavior. Knowing the rationale behind the specification makes it
>easier to extrapolate it to new situations. Also, most participants might
>not have been aware that there was already a general rule in 1364-2001
>covering subprocesses surviving longer than the surrounding automatic scopes.
>In the absence of any resolution in the SV specification, it is the only
>existing rule that applies.
>
>It isn't a clear resolution or necessarily the best one. What you have
>raised is a serious problem in the specification, and one for which the
>best solution is not obvious.
>
>Any further issues involving the 1364-2001 standard should probably be
>addressed to the ETF, and not discussed here unless they are relevant to
>the SV specification.
>
>Steven Sharp
>sharp@cadence.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 22 2003 - 16:22:50 PDT